På torsdag 11. juni 2026 kl. 18:55, skrev Stuart Henderson
<stu@spacehopper.org>:

> On 2026/06/11 16:44, yaydn@protonmail.com wrote:
> > På torsdag 11. juni 2026 kl. 14:07, skrev Leah Rowe
> > <info@minifree.org>:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > Firstly, thank you Landry for recently merging my LibreWolf web browser
> > > port. It currently stands in the ports repo at 151.0.3-1.
> > >
> > > The attached diff updates it to 151.0.4-1, and I've also tweaked the
> > > mozconfig to match upstream changes.
> > >
> > > I used the OpenBSD ports git mirror from github and did git
> > > format-patch, because I don't yet know how to use CVS properly. If
> > > that's a problem, tell me and I'll just switch to sending RCS diffs.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Company director, Minifree Ltd
> > > Registered in England, No. 9361826 | VAT No. GB202190462
> > > Registered Office: 19 Hilton Road, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 9QA, UK
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Here is what I got from a:
> >
> > cd /usr/ports/www/librewolf/ && make makesum update-plist update-patches
> 
> don't run makesum if you're testing something that has been
> sent out. you want things to fail if the downloaded file does
> not match what the submitter has.
> 

That makes sense. In this case I did a patch in parallel with Leah's. I
got a similar diff to Leah's. Is that alright? I apologize for not
explaining properly.

I also forgot to mention building this on current/amd64.

> update-plist/update-patches can be useful if you're checking
> whether something was missed however that would probably be
> done after a clean build.. (and with some ports running
> update-patches at a stage later than "make patch" can cause
> spurious changes)
> 

To make sure I understand, when testing someone else's patch one should
do 'make build' or 'make package'(that includes the prior?). Then use
update-plist/update-patches for testing for any missing changes. That
thankfully is what I've been doing.

I assume make build/package would implicitly do the prior steps in:
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/testing.html
or
file:///usr/www/faq/ports/testing.html
if one has a checkout of the /usr/www tree.

Is that wrong; should I be explicitly doing each step or am I failing
to do a needed step?

Separately, where as when in the pipeline to make one's own patch, is
the workflow 'make makesum update-plist update-patches package' fine or
should I be explicitly doing 'make build' prior to the
update-plist/update-patches?

I thought make 'update-plist' for example implicitly did 'make build' if
it has not been done so already. May have misunderstood the
https://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/guide.html
or
file:///usr/www/faq/ports/guide.html
again(due to my own poor reading comprehension, it is a good guide).

Expanding a bit, if no new patches are needed in steps 13 and 14 of
guide.html is the update-patches in an okay position for finding any
needed changes so old patches in patches/* apply cleanly?

Sorry for my confusion and if my query is not well formed. Did my
questions make sense?

> > cd /usr/ports/www/librewolf/ && make port-lib-depends-check check-shlib-syms
> 
> check-shlib-syms requires a checkout of /usr/src.
> 

My culpa.

Thanks and have a good day/night.